Let's talk DSLRs and other big sensor cameras

“And other big sensor cameras” being the interesting stuff they’re doing with mirrorless cameras that have 4/3rds or bigger sized senors.

I’m going to be in the market for a DSLR. Probably not for a couple of months, but I’ve been doing my research. Given the quality you can get out of a $1500 or less body these days, I don’t think I need to exceed that to get a good body.

They say you should spend all your money on the lenses anyway, so you can get by with a cheap, adequate body - and the cheaper bodies can take some great imagines - but they lack some of the nice features higher end cameras have like advanced autofocus systems, lots of fiddly dials, AF screw motors for legacy lenses, durability/weatherproofing, intervalometers, electronic levels, faster shooting rates, etc. But I’d rather start with a solid body, buy one good lens to start with, and gradually build my collection over time.

If it helps show what sort of stuff I’d use the camera for, here’s my flickr page. Mostly landscape work, some action… not a lot of portraits, and I probably wouldn’t do a lot of portraits, but you can do far more with them with big sensor cameras rather than compacts, so maybe it’ll ignite my interest in doing that.

I’m leaning towards the Pentax K-5, which is universally well regarded, even if Pentax is a small player on the market. The body is only $1100, but it’s a prosumer/semi-professional class body. The build quality is great with a rugged magnesium body and extensive weatherproofing seals. It has the Sony 16.2mp EXMOR sensor which is which is unusually good - much better than other sensors in its class, most likely the best sensor on any APS-C camera, possibly only rivalled by the newer Sony 24mp sensor. Based on reviews, it also has the best implementation of that sensor, leading to what might be the best APS-C image quality ever made. Possibly beaten only, remarkably, by the NEX-7 … more on that later. It has a full 1.5-2 stops in dynamic range over comparable sensors in its class. You can underexpose a tricky shot and then recover an amazing amount of shadow detail with a fill light. It has 14 bit raw to use that potential. Examples in this dp thread. The high iso performance is also best of any APS-C camera, you can get pretty good shots at 6400 and usable shots past that, which is amazing.

Lots of physical controls - seperate dials for shutter and aperture, physical switches for drive mode, AF mode, AF point selection, metering, etc. Intervalometer - which lots of cameras strangely lack and it’s such an easy thing to include - I want to do time lapse. Electronic level, which would be nice for panoramas. Better auto-iso system than other cameras (most DSLR implementations of auto-iso sound retarded to me and I don’t understand why they don’t just copy the system compacts use).

The downsides are a crappy movie mode (no autofocus during movies, inefficient compression scheme) and that the Pentax lens/accessory ecosystem isn’t as big as Canon/Nikon. Which reminds me - can you just fip a lens on manual focus and use it during movies? Is there anything that would stop you? Pentax lenses are regarded as good, and their primes are some of the best in the business, but there isn’t as much choice as with Canon/Nikon, and they seem at first glance to be more expensive in a lot of cases even though their lenses without image stabilization and some even without internal motors costing as much as their IS/motor counterparts.

Which reminds me actually - sensor/body stabilization vs lens. Canon and Nikon have lens-based. Sony and Pentax have sensor based. The perks of lens-based are that you get a stabilized image in the optical viewfinder (which is really important if you’re trying to shoot telephoto), and it seems like in general the system performs to a greater degree. In-body stabilization gets you a bouncy viewfinder, but means that every lens in stabilized. In theory, this could lead to cheaper lenses, but typically doesn’t seem to. But more importantly, any lens, even without a stabilization group, becomes stabilized. So fast primes (which never come in stabilized form) can become light gathering monsters. Old legacy lenses can become stabilized. Cool stuff. Not sure which is the better route though.

I’m intrigued by the idea of hunting down old lenses though. You can pick up old lenses from decades ago. We’ve developed a few tricks to reduce certain types of abberations, and we have some advanced anti-glare coatings and stuff, but the basics of optics haven’t really changed in 100 years. So you could get lenses that are 50 years old that are great at what they do - albeit they will be full manual lenses. Manual aperture ring, manual focus… but you can get lucky and get stuff that’s optically better than $1000 lenses today for under $100. I’m interested in giving that a go.

Other options: I really want the Sony 16.2mp sensor after everything I’ve read about it. The next best option with that is the Nikon D7000, which is very close in preference to the K5 for me. Main problem is - the factory that made it became destroyed by the Thailand flooding, prices have since gone up a few hundred bucks, and the situation will probably be worse by the time I’m ready to buy. I don’t know if Nikon will make new D7000s at a new factory, or just tool up for a D7100 that might not be quite as good, or may be more expensive.

The advantages of that, though, are a more advanced autofocus system… at least it’s 51 points vs 11, but I’ve read about problems with backfocus a lot on those things, and buying into the Nikon accessory/lens system, including having a nice wireless flash commander… although I’m not sure I’d ever use that, I try to minimize flash use as it is. Better movie mode too.

The other cameras that use this sensor are Sony. They have their conventional SLR, the A580, their oddball translucent mirror, the A-55, and their pretty remarkable compact, the NEX-5N. Sony can’t get much traction in the market but they make really interesting cameras, and with cool gadgets.

The SLT cameras are interesting and strange, able to have really good full time autofocus, including phase detect autofocus in movie/live view mode. Main downside is an electronic viewfielder, albeit the best in the business.

That’s one thing I wonder if I should just embrace now. Mirrors seem to be on their way out long term. I know lots of photographers can’t stand anything without an OVF, and I’ve never used a DSLR, so I wonder if I should just skip ever learning to like one and go straight to EVF.

There are also the newer A-65 and A-77, which have the same design, better EVF tech (apparently amazing), and the 24mp sensor. I haven’t looked into them much, but the gadgetry looks interesting. Main downside there is that the transculent mirror is always siphoning off about a third stop of light to the camera, hurting light gathering ability.

The Canon in this price range is the 60d, which to be honest isn’t particularly impressive in any way. There’s the 7D if I’m willing to step up in price, and while I like the body design, and it’s apparently a well-featured camera, the image quality lags behind the ones I already mentioned and it’s not too compelling at that price point. Which is too bad, because I probably like Canon’s lens lineup best of any major system. Granted, with only casual overview of prices/specs.

I’m not particularly interested in compact mirrorless cameras like 4/3rds. I figure if I’m going to do photography stuff, I can lug around a full size DSLR, and I like the extra physical controls. And there are amazing compacts they make nowadays to carry around with you at all times if you don’t bring your main camera.

But one interesting standout here is the NEX-7. It’s as small as those olympus and panasonic 4/3rds cameras, while having a full sized APS-C sensor. DPReview says the NEX-7 probably has the best image quality of any APS-C camera ever. Which is amazing. I’m concerned that the 24mp sony sensor replacing the 16.2MP sensor wouldn’t be as good - increasing the MP at this range doesn’t offer much but degrades high-iso performance, but they seem to think the noise levels are the same, so maybe it really is a better sensor. They managed to put a remarkable amount of physical controls onto the small body (albeit nowhere near something like the K-5), and load up up with a great EVF and the cool sony gadgets like sweep panorama.

It seems to me that the NEX-7 could single-handedly kill the entire 4/3rds market. If you can get a camera that’s only a tiny bit bigger, but has the best image quality of any APS-C, why would you ever pick 4/3rds? More pancake lens options at the moment I suppose, but they’ll be appear for the e-mount shortly enough I’m sure.

Which brings me to possibly the biggest drawback - e-mount options aren’t as flexible or cheap as any of the major full size mounts. But it’s an amazing feat of technology, and if I decided I needed something more compact, that would easily be my first choice.

So… this OP is running a bit long. This isn’t just a thread about me hunting for a camera - feel free to use it for your own DSLR discussion - what you’re looking for, cool new technology, whatever. But I would like input about what camera I should be picking, especially if the K-5 is a good choice.

System first, then camera.

If action is part of what you want, then I think its pretty much Canon or Nikon DSLR, AF really matters for that, and no mirrorless can really do it well yet, and its considered to be a weaker point of the Pentax from what Ive read. This is assuming that you’re working towards a 70-200mm at some point. Sony would be an alternative but the lens range overall is still small.

Sensor differences are getting smaller, not larger. I wouldnt pick a camera on that basis, they can all do very high quality pictures now - the differences are measurable but not particularly meaningful in my view.

So in your shoes Id be picking between the Canon 7D or the Nikon D7000. I picked the Canon when the D7000 wasnt out, Id probably pick the D7000 now. My friend has it. I think its really a ‘cant lose’ situation though.

Yes you can manually focus with video.

Otara

…I’ve just bought a Canon 7D: I’ve had it for a day!

I can’t give you a full review yet as I"m still evaluating it, but so far I’m loving it! I’ll give you a fuller report in a few days, but for my own shooting style and what I do it really is turning out to be the perfect camera for me. Some samples of what I shoot:

www.bigmark.co.nz

Most of my images were shot with the Canon 500D: an entry level body that worked wonders for me until it broke down a couple of months ago.

I echo Otara’s comments and that you should look for a system first, then the camera body. Get down to the camera shop and hold the different cameras and get a feel for what you are comfortable with. I had my heart set on the Sony range of DSLR cameras until I actually picked one up and found that I didn’t like the feel of them at all and this alone steered me towards Canon.

Were I a landscape photographer, I probably would skip all the ones you have mentioned and go over budget for a Canon 5D Mark II (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=5D+mark+II&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=10918438311995130251&sa=X&ei=VfHxTousNMPcgQfvubWLAg&ved=0CIUBEPMCMAE)

For one reason - to go wide. I believe the 5D Mark II is the cheapest full frame camera, which is going to make every lens you use much wider angle. That will allow you to either use cheaper lenses (and have less distortion), or to get even wider than it is possible to go with crop sensor cameras like you are talking about.

I don’t think the FF idea would save me anything on lenses unless I only bought legacy lenses. Aren’t FF lenses typically more expensive?

I was thinking of making the Pentax 16-45 f/4 my landscape lens (or maybe a 15mm prime). What are the cheaper options for getting 24mm equivelant coverage in a full frame lens with similar performance?

Not for canon (and I don’t think for nikon ?) - virtually all quality lenses are full frame lenses- IE all or all but one L lenses, all the primes, etc - anything that says “EF” mount will work on a full frame sensor or a Crop sensor - they are just wider angler on a full frame (or alternately, higher zoom on a crop sensor).
IE, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00006I53R/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1324479884&sr=1-1 would be considered entry level glass
while this would be a “quality” lens
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24mm-Angle-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001GNCWCE/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1324479884&sr=1-2
Edit to add, the beauty of full frame is that you can go way wider if you want (and if you only want F/4 performance lenses cost less, obviously), IE
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WO/ref=sr_1_9?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1324479969&sr=1-9

I would suggest you try handle and test drive all the contenders: Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax.

I did that and I ended with a Pentax a few years ago with a DS and just bought the K5. It’s somewhat smaller than C+N comparables yet feels more solid. All the buttons are easily accessible and feels good in my hands. To me ergonomics is also key.

I used and still do use Nikon film cameras still have a few lenses. I really think Nikon and Canon are superior systems compared to Pentax. However, for my needs, the K5 delivers: sealed, smaller bodies and enough lenses including plenty of old manual ones that can be had for cheap. I used my K7 and now K5 in the rain, snow, dusty environment and travel with it everywhere.

If I were a real pro with real needs for flash systems and fast predictive AF, I would have gone with either Canon or Nikon. But then again, I would’ve invested in a much more expensive system than a D7000 or 7D.

Sony is pretty cool. I think the SLT might be a good idea but as of now I do not think it fully exploits the potential of the sensor. The NEX seems pretty good, but it still isn’t a DSLR.

In the end, it’s all based on your priorities.

What’s strange is that in the dpreview review of the NEX-7, they dedicate a page to seeing if the increased 24MP of the new sony sensor increases noise, and they conclude that it doesn’t.

But if you go to their own studio compare program, and plug in the NEX-5N or other 16MP cameras like the K5 or D7000 to the NEX-7, the NEX-7 clearly has more noise. Easily noticible up in the 6400+ iso range.

Which worries me. Now I wonder if all of the new cameras will be “upgraded” to the 24MP sensor, which really degrades performance. It’s utterly ridiculous that sometimes you’ll hit this exceptionally good point in technical development where you strike the right balance and make a great device - and then you “upgrade” your product line and lose what made your previous products exceptional, and you actually downgrade over time. Might have to strike now before I’m forced to endure an “upgraded” sensor on new models.

Ah, since it’s a 100% crop, you’re looking at a different amount of pixels in the side by side image, which I’m told explains the difference in noise levels (didn’t download and interpolate to test myself).

Wish I could, but the only decent camera store in the whole area that I could find is a canon/nikon only shop.

What do you think of it after using it somewhat? What other cameras do you use that you can compare it to?

The Nex-7 made camera of the year in popular photography.

http://www.popphoto.com/camera-of-the-year

Help me out here: isn’t “100% crop” == zero pixels?

Don’t write off the Fuji X100 - it has fully manual controls (without going into a freakin’ menu!) and is supposedly very good.

No, 100% crop means that you have cropped a portion of the image, but then presented that at 100% native size. The piece that you are looking at exactly as it came from the camera, no compressing the size to better fit on the screen.

To explain further, if you have a 4000x3000 image you’re displaying on a screen, and your monitor is only 1920x1080, you can’t display every pixel in the image - it’s scaled down and downsized to display on your screen.

If you zoom in to the picture, you’re seeing more of the pixels you couldn’t see from full screen because you’re bringing out more detail in a smaller area. At some point, you’re at the level where one pixel in the image is exactly matched to one pixel on your monitor - so you’re seeing exactly what the camera saw - this is a 100% crop. The 100% here I guess referring to not being scaled by 30% or 130%, but rather represented at full accuracy.

Review sites use them to display the performance of the camera and highlight tricky areas, giving you a managable section of the image to look at, rather than giving you a huge full picture at full detail that you’d have to zoom in on.

It’s great. Coming from a K7 just before that there was no adjustment needed. Fits in my hand like a glove (YMMV). I’ve used D90 and D300 for a few weeks. Both are great. D300 is like on another level in terms of performance, but big, heavy and expensive. I’ve also borrowed my sis’s Rebel. It produces good IQ but doesn’t feel good. Again, If I were in need of a better performance DSLR than the K5, I’d go with something better than a D7000 or 7D. But that’s just me.

Woops, wrong thread somehow.

An article in the NYT today mentioned the Nikon D5100. It mentions that the D5100 uses the same sensor as D7000.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D5100/D5100A.HTM

I just used one of those cameras the other day. I immediately noticed that it had no control wheel in the front (for the index finger.) Meaning that I had to adjust the aperture by holding down a tiny button on top of the camera with one finger and then turning the thumb control wheel. WTF? This is “progress”? My D70 has no such limitation and I can adjust aperture and shutter speed intuitively and immediately. Be aware of this if you like the idea of being able to do that.

It’s not a matter of progress, it’s a matter of tiering. Obviously we have the technology to put more dials on cameras, but one of the things that seperates the D5100 (which is a great camera in that price range btw, great sensor and image quality) from the D7000 is stuff like a weathersealed body and more physical controls. They’ve decided to give low tier models great image quality from the ground up (which is good for the consumer) and have them pay more for features like physical controls, higher frame rate, better viewfinder, etc.